Federal Council wants to pave the way for new nuclear power plants, “Swiss Review” 6/2024 (to the article)
How does the Federal Council have the nerve to ignore a referendum? This is a very dangerous development, which parliament has to stop at all costs. It is the people, i.e. the majority of the electorate, who should always have the final say.
Substituting radioactivity for lowering fossil-fuel emissions is ridiculous. Radioactive materials from the front-end all the way through to the end is the most dangerous, inefficient, and costly manner to produce power. Remember they sang praises about fission too ...
Using nuclear energy to generate electricity is not only legitimate – it’s smart and safe. Safe? Yes, as long as we are consistent and build power stations that are secure enough to handle the risks involved and don’t scrimp on construction in the interests of making a quick profit.
Nuclear power stations exist despite the fact that they are uninsurable. Any loss or damage in the event of a serious accident would not be covered. Reactor operators pocket the profits while future generations are left to deal with a legacy that includes radioactive waste. Only when taxpayers bear the lion’s share of the costs does a nuclear power station become economically viable. We ignore the costs and problems that future generations will inherit in relation to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Using nuclear power ties up huge amounts of money that are urgently needed for the continued development of renewables.
In Switzerland, children are raised in values such as cleaning up after oneself, yet there are still no repositories for nuclear waste. I am an environmental scientist and the fact—not paradigm—is simple. There is no away. We all live on one Earth. There’s only one! We will not foul the nest for future generations simply to create more weapons or line more pockets with money. We have plenty of other tasks to do in cleaning up our messes concerning fossil fuels.
There is currently no reason why we should do without nuclear energy. In fact, nuclear power is vital if we want to meet our climate goals. For example, US climate envoy Kerry said at the Dubai climate conference that nuclear energy capacity needs to be tripled if we are to achieve net zero.
Although nuclear power plants generate zero-carbon electricity, they produce huge amounts of radioactive waste. This is the core problem, along with all the legacy issues that it entails (cost, long-term storage, risk, health, etc.). Energy Minister Albert Rösti should know this. He needs to tell the truth.
Nuclear waste has already been produced, and whether Switzerland stops or continues operating nuclear power plants will change nothing. The waste is there. What’s more, there will always be a source of nuclear waste from the medical, industrial and defence sectors. I don’t understand this fear of nuclear waste, which has never caused a single death. Waste that is contained, sealed and inert in its crystalline form is the cleanest waste we can hope for. Many other sectors produce waste that scares almost nobody, yet their heavy metals are left to decay in landfill sites or in nature, directly into the soil and the air.
I think this is probably a case of preparing for a new popular vote. The latest round of the energy debate, as always, ignores the issue of people’s own, private, energy-dependent “normal” need for luxury. Everyone obviously agrees on that.
Comments